D
Deleted member 848
Guest
What tool does Hood lack?
Offensively? Nothing really. Definitely lacks defense.
What tool does Hood lack?
See, this is an explanation. But it's placing the entire value of a player's "importance" based on who their back up is, instead of on the player in discussion. "Importance" of a player then becomes a critique of depth; it really has nothing to do with the actual player, which is pretty silly. It just goes back to my point that discussing who the most "important" player is isn't a worth while discussion. Let's talk about who the best player on the team is. Period. If people want to say the depth at a certain position sucks, then just say that. What's the point of these mental semantics?
Of course, this is just one attempt at defining "importance." I think most people really have no idea what they mean by it when they use it as some sort of opposition to the word "best."
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Let's ignore the fact that he was repeatedly mentioned as suffering from the flu for two of those games. Why else would he get benched after 15 minutes of play? #franklin
His %'s are actually down from last season. Pretty much across the board. I still want him to get more touches.
Good postRight now, I'd say yes. He's been the leading scorer in 5 of our 10 games, and was sick for 3 of them.
Really, though, I feel like we'll have a different "best player" on the team every few weeks. I'm sure there will be stretches where Hayward is the best, where Burks is the best, where Gobert is the best, where Hood is the best.
We've got a good balance, here, and all of these guys are capable of going on a mean streak.
It's not silly-- our assessment of players don't always have to be reflective of their inner talents. It's a forum, dog. Gobert is as important as **** because our big-situation would become a ****ing nightmare if he left. I guess you could argue the same with Fav, but maybe you could make Hayward a small-ball PF.
Another way of differentiating: I think Hayward is better than Gobert but Gobert is more important (regardless of depth) because his skillet influences and rubs off on the rest of the team... And his skillset is more rare.See, this is an explanation. But it's placing the entire value of a player's "importance" based on who their back up is, instead of on the player in discussion. "Importance" of a player then becomes a critique of depth; it really has nothing to do with the actual player, which is pretty silly. It just goes back to my point that discussing who the most "important" player is isn't a worth while discussion. Let's talk about who the best player on the team is. Period. If people want to say the depth at a certain position sucks, then just say that. What's the point of these mental semantics?
Of course, this is just one attempt at defining "importance." I think most people really have no idea what they mean by it when they use it as some sort of opposition to the word "best."
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Right now I would say vision..... That could change thoughWhat tool does Hood lack?
He's shooting .512 this year and shot .525 last year. In terms of FTs, last year he shot .669, compared to .667 this year. These numbers are nearly identical.
Someone recently posted his %s on midrange jumpers season by season, and it's noticeably higher (I wanna say it's a jump from about 42% to 47%, IIRC).
But yes, I want him to get more touches, too.
Another way of differentiating: I think Hayward is better than Gobert but Gobert is more important (regardless of depth) because his skillet influences and rubs off on the rest of the team... And his skillset is more rare.
Imo Hayward is a better basketball player than rudy. But I think Rudy is more important and harder to replace
That seems pretty intuitive. I tried to find this on nba/stats the other day but that website is so damn slow I couldn't load it. The guy looks automatic from the top of the key.
I still think statements like these are completely vague. I don't see any difference between how you're using the word "important" vs how you're using the word "best."
The discussion is about who gives us the best chance of winning, regardless of how they go about accomplishing that. If you want to define that as being the best, being the most important, then fine. The problem comes with acting like they're somehow different terms (when they're clearly synonymous) without providing an explanation as to how they're different. I don't think it accomplishes anything, and just makes the whole conversation abstract and useless.
It's Kinda bizarre how much this annoys you.
This is what makes him most important, but not best. I said at the end of last year Faves would be tops. Said this after looking at his progression through the years. Look at the Clippers after DJ committed to Dallas. CP3 Blake and Rivers camped out at DJ's house, because they knew it would be disastrous if he left. Also look at GS's title run. Curry, obviously is there franchise but GS desperately needed his defense on LBJ and playmaking ability.Totally disagree.
Gobert is so unique. You put him on any team and they instantly get better on defense.
It's not just because he replaced Kanter who was terrible. Gobert is actually an elite defender.
There was a five min stretch where faves posted him up 3-4 times in a row and scored every time. After that Favers didn't do much more post as this is a heavily wing oriented team. His oppertunities are somewhat limited on this team. Put him on a team like the griz and a few of those 20+ point games are 30 point games as he's not the focus of our offense.good post, but how did he abuse Millsap?
See my post abovePeople have yet to describe what they mean by "important" vs "best." I personally hate those type of discussions. I would say those words are synonyms in the context we're using here, and people act like they're very different without even an attempt at an explanation.
I remember Eric Spoelstra saying that Bosh was Miami's most important player when LeBron was there (lol).
Two of the games he was sick and didn't play the second half in one. And the other game he never got into a game flow due to early and often foul troubleHe's had 3 monster games (26, 25, 23) and 3 horrible games (6,6,5) out of 10. How's that consistent?
Lmao at your spellingLMAO atFacvors used Millsap. Check the box scores you clowns
I checked It still says the Jazz won. And that Millsap missed the game winning shot. I don't care about all the other crap in this thread that's all that matters to me.LMAO atFacvors used Millsap. Check the box scores you clowns
His % are way up. I think he was below 50% last year post Kanter trade.He's shooting .512 this year and shot .525 last year. In terms of FTs, last year he shot .669, compared to .667 this year. These numbers are nearly identical.
Someone recently posted his %s on midrange jumpers season by season, and it's noticeably higher (I wanna say it's a jump from about 42% to 47%, IIRC).
But yes, I want him to get more touches, too.